ultrasquid

The new terrain engine just released in the 0.14.2/3 update has brought it much closer. It\'s still in alpha level development after all. Have patience, young padawan.

I ran across this little morsel that, in light of your recent design efforts, I figured might interest you: http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-buckliball-avenue-foldable.html

Well, if you can get it to bounce, you could make a bouncy sphere on a .5m package and a bouncy donut on a thin 1m piece. Stick them on each respective end of a command module and you have essentially a pyramidal (actually conical, but close enough) airbag aerobraking and crash absorbing system

I miss the flare ball.

Yes. http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=3240.0 But don\'t post in that thread, lest you be accused of necroposting. And only speak of submarines here. :

A potential compromise: A pressurized capsule on the cable transit system; essentially an elevator booth running on rails through the truss. It would offer the protection and comfort of a tunnel with only slightly more weight than an ascension cable alone.

You\'ve captured a nice control tower look there. Could be good for more than just landers.

I like the .5m capsule. It\'s a cute and economical way to send a kerbal to escape velocity on a small rocket. They\'d make good lifeboats on larger craft too if they weren\'t primary command modules.

Oh yeah, another problem: it doesn\'t function as an ordinary decoupler when it comes up in regular staging by spacebar tapping. Not sure if there\'s a way to overcome that. For now will just have to hit B when the stage it\'s in comes up.

This is an awesome, handy component, EXCEPT that it appears identical to the stock decoupler, which leads to confusion in the VAB listing and in visualizing its location on the spacecraft. I\'ve taken the liberty of modifying the skin to solve this problem, and I\'ll share it here.

You mean like Mandrake-Rutherford?

Yes, the cone is truncated intentionally. It\'s not such a factor with the small demo motors, but it is quite pronounced on the linear #-33 motor.

Here\'s a page full of aerospike rocket demonstrations http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=aerospike&search=tag Near the top of the list is the linear aerospike engine intended for use on the X-33. Note the multiple nozzles in this design, in contrast with the undivided toroidal designs seen in the other videos. CaptainSlug\'s aerospike engine takes the multiport design of the X-33 motor and wraps it into a circle. Each of the nozzles can be individually modulated, thus enabling thrust vectoring when the valves are connected to an appropriate control system.

I\'m not sure what the problem is. Areospike engines generally have no visible moving parts, even those with vectoring capability as that\'s done by asymmetric fuel pumping.

I rather like Cpt. Slug\'s explosive bolts. They make a handy all-purpose microdecoupler, good for much more than just ejecting payload shrouds.

Tiberion has received permission to revamp Captain Slug\'s Assorted Hardware as part of the NovaPunch project. Please be patient. Updates are in the works.

A pressurized tunnel would mean a large structural mass and volume of breathing gas that wouldn\'t be of much other use. A cable run through the center of the truss would be a safe way to transport EVA suited kerbals using a simple ascension motor.

Thank you Donkeytron!

Here it is March 6th and this free software is still available as of right now. I\'m downloading as we speak. DAZ has done this before, free full apps given out usually just a month or two before a new version comes out.

Congratulations on getting approval to do the Captain Slug update. Those are some of my favorite parts, and it\'s been sad seeing them languish while the game engine advances. I know all too well that the original authors often are unable for all variety of real-life reasons to perpetually maintain their volunteer efforts at user generated content, so it\'s reassuring that some great bits and pieces are being handed off to a responsible party. I have a little idea: do you think it\'s possible to put an attachment node on the bottom of the foot of one of those folding lander legs? That would be useful for a lot of things…

@Deusoverkill: I thought I\'d ask in this thread, since some get offended at the thought of bumping a post only a few months old, have you given any thought to updating your old set with the RockBird'>http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=3473.0']RockBird command module and other orbital parts for KSPv14 compatibility? It\'d mostly be a matter of making the RockBird a selectable module rather than overwriting the original CM, unless other things changed that I\'m not fully aware of, not having kept up on all the tech docs. It probably wouldn\'t be hard for somebody else to do if you\'d grant your permission. As was mentioned Soyuz was developed in the middle of the last century and is still in reliable use today (and your model is both beautiful and functional); therefore why should we have a problem with using Kerbal parts developed only in the middle of last year? I\'d just hate to see a bunch of good parts get orphaned like so many have been past the 5th page of the Projects and Releases forum.

He did, but those modules are described as unmanned and/or remote controlled units, crew capacity numbers and facecams of onboard kerbals notwithstanding. They are also textured either with painted stripes or gold foil, lacking any features necessary for habitation, e.g.: hatches, windows, utility ports, etc. This module at least has that.

The current system, while much improved over not being able to choose among various command modules at all, requires that you commit to your choice before you\'ve started building your rocket. What if you have a fine, functional, possibly very complex, rocket already assembled and tested and you want to swap out the command module for a mission specific purpose? Under the current arrangement, you would have to rebuild the entire rocket from the beginning from the bottom of the alternate pod. in short: From a usability standpoint, it needs to be easier to swap out the upper stages of saved rocket files, including the command module.

The trick is in pounding what the game already supports to look like what you want it to. Like the Noyuz expanding solar panels, signal flares, and Kerbalnauts, to name but a few. Yes, new code might have to be written into the game to make them work perfectly, but if it looks good enough for now, it\'s good enough.

Perhaps you could make a giant 3m aerospike engine, with variable thrust from each of its ports to allow vectoring